jayhawk83

Comment history

I guess your "documentation" will be key as the lawsuit against the city ramps up in the coming months. When the dust settles, we will see who was correct. My bet is Loughry will be walking away with a handsome settlement courtesy of the people you still support. No evidence of criminal activity, no acts of wrongdoing. All you have is your perception of the truth, but the authorities have cleared him. Peddle your perceptions elsewhere.

Lol; it amuses me that pointing to the facts of the matter is diversionary, instead of credit to the fact that funds were handled correctly. Hmmmm; valid charges being ignored by authorities? I don't think so. Since you are such an expert, I suggest you question the powers that be as to why these charges that should be filed continually get "ignored."

Regarding his salary, Loughry was due for a pay increase at his previous employer, which can be verified by the City of Hays. And actually, that information has been covered in a few of the articles on this very site. Why wouldn't a qualified person seek at least, if not more, compensation when stepping into a lead position, let alone moving their family? That's common sense, people. The council approves the budgets and watched receipts like hawks; ask any employee with the city how often council members were in their business. Regarding withholding severance pay, it sounds like a page directly from the previous council's book. It's what they did to Loughry, after all.

You have definitely drank the Kool-aid, LR. I find it laughable that the KBI investigation, which turned up nothing on Loughry, is not a good enough to assuage your opinions. You should stop calling these men criminals; competent investigators have noted no wrongdoing on their part. It's about time the people of this town embrace that fact. Sure, try to make Loughry and Hill pay for an expensive audit that uncovered nothing, and have them pay for it. when the council that made this mess called for it. If a bill should be sent, get Dysart and Mertz's addresses.

I think the illusion here is your desire to "project" yourself as just a concerned citizen that as no affiliation with the Washington party. I also find it funny that you seem to think that no one has audited the books of the city. They have been reviewed, at great expense, with nothing out of the ordinary coming up. Not the past year, or the years before that. So, before you accuse others of "projecting" their ideas or agenda in an effort to fool the masses, I suggest you come back to the facts yourself. Accusations abound, but where are the charges? There is a fiduciary responsibility of any auditing party to notify the authorities about misappropriation of funds. And when was it that this happened? That's right, the auditing firm never produced evidence of that nature. Projection seems to take form in this website that you praise so much. I'm sorry that you see my jab at Becky as a diversion; I simply use it to illustrate the caliber of thought some people try to convey their arguments with. It speaks volumes of their intellect and credibility.

I would like to know where you are getting the idea that Lloyd is going to assume the role of mayor; he obviously has his hands full being chief and interim city administrator. Which, by the way, good luck finding someone who will want the administrator position now. It's going to cost the city even more money, benefits, and protections to get someone to take that bullet. I wonder why there has been no talk of hiring another administrator after all these months? How nice that you keep stirring the pot with theories about what will happen to this town. Sidenote: the only thing Becky has given me is further appreciation for having learned proper spelling and sentence structure.

"the only thing you accomplish when you continue to post rude and boorish comments is to make anyother post you have seem unworthy."

Well said mckinley2010, so perhaps you should keep that in mind before you post what you have above. Wouldn't want to continue to slander a man that has been cleared of wrongdoing by the KBI. It seems that you think you know a lot about what justifies a lawsuit, yet toe the line yourself.

mckinley, you are very fond of stating there has been criminal activity on Loughry and Hill's part. Once again, I will ask you: where is the evidence? It is my understanding that the KBI has investigated Loughry with nothing found in wrong doing. I'm not sure about Hill's investigation. Note, these investigations have been spurred by Mertz. What was the official outcome of such investigations? I think you should check your facts before spouting off about criminal activity.

Where you are getting your information is laughable, and certainly as misinformed as most Mertz/Dysart proponents. An oversight in a contract can be amended by both parties with a witness, which is what was done. Hill represents the city, and knew that the payment for Loughry and his family was part of the deal when they negotiated terms. It was what he received from Hays; why would that not be a stipulation at the new job? When the council finally got the amendment to the contract they asked for as drafted by Marcano, they voted it down and dismissed Loughry. Please specify which of the many laws Hill and Loughry broke, why the KBI investigations turned up nothing, and why not charges have been filed? Simple: there are none! While I can't say I'm happy about Hill, you can bet that I'm still celebrating tonight.

This is hilarious. I have not sung his praises, only pointed out fact. You think that a man who has been openly wronged by this city council would just stand back and take it? He has rights, and the city blatantly disregarded those rights. How would you feel if you were wrongfully terminated from your position, and then drug through the mud like a criminal? No charges have ever or will ever be filed. Then, those who sought to remove you in such a distasteful way decide to add insult to injury by stripping you of the benefits outlined in your contract? It's laughable that the council acted this way in spite of their legal counsel. And, you seem to be completely at ease with this turn of events. Are you aware of what a legally binding contract entails? Obviously not...

It is apparent from this whole situation that the only interests you wish to protect are your own. Purchasing power was voted on and given to the the former administrator as a means of efficiency by the council you sit on. Your whole gripe with Loughry stems from a contract drafting error made by the same lawyer that you are singing the praises of in your letter. At the end of the day, you have exposed the city to a great liability, forever changed the life of the Loughry family, and want to ruin Hill's reputation.